friendship maintenance mediates the relationship between

FriendshipMaintenanceMediates the Relationship Between Compassionfor Others and Happiness

Marlyn Sanchez1 & Andrew Haynes2 & Jennifer C. Parada2 & Melikşah Demir2

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

AbstractDisplaying compassion for others (CFO) and utilizing friendshipmaintenance (FM) behaviors are positively associatedwith happiness.Two studies investigated FM as a mediator of the relationship between CFO and happiness (Study 1: N = 273; Study 2: N = 368). FMmediated the CFO-Happiness relationship in both studies regardless of the way happiness was measured. Although women had higherscores on both CFO and FM, themodel was supported for both genders. The implications of the findings are discussed and suggestionsfor future research are provided.

Keywords Compassion for others . Happiness . Friendshipmaintenance .Mediation . Gender differences . Bootstrapping

In recent years, compassion in general and compassion forothers, particularly, has received a vast attention in the field ofpsychology. Although a lack of consensus remains on the defi-nition (Strauss et al. 2016), studies have found that compassion,regardless of the conceptualization, has many positive outcomes.For instance, research has identified an association between self-compassion and a sense of community (Akin and Akin 2015),and relational well-being (Yarnell and Neff 2013). Compassionfor others (hereafter CFO) on the other hand is related to forgive-ness (Arslan 2017) and better problem-solving skills (Feher2016). Furthermore, CFO is a reliable correlate of well-being,including happiness (e.g., Beaumont et al. 2016a, b; Bibeauet al. 2016; İşgör 2017). Yet, an explanation for why the CFO-happiness association exists remains absent in the literature. Thecurrent investigation aimed to address this gap by testing friend-ship maintenance as the mediator of the relationship betweenCFO and happiness. We focus on friendship because not everyemerging adult is involved in a romantic relationship (Demir,2010) and some prefer to be single (Shulman and Connolly2013). Additionally, friends become the primary source of emo-tional support and intimacy during emerging adulthood (Barry

et al. 2016). Consistent with this trend, friendship experiencesmake unique contributions to emerging adults’ happiness evenwhen taking other close relationships (e.g., relationship with par-ents, romantic partners) into account (Brannan et al. 2013; Demiret al. 2018; Ratelle et al. 2013).

Compassion for Others

Neff (2003) defines compassion as: B…being open to andmoved by the suffering of others, so that one desires to easetheir suffering. It also involves offering others patience, kind-ness and nonjudgmental understanding, recognizing that allhumans are imperfect and make mistakes^ (p. 224). Whilethis definition focuses on alleviating others’ suffering, the ini-tial work championed by Neff focused on self-compassion.This line of research has shown that self-compassion is a ro-bust marker of psychological well-being and has implicationsfor health (see Neff and Knox 2017 for a review). Researchershave also strived to understand compassion in relation to one’sinterpersonal relationships. After all, when a person is suffer-ing it often stimulates help, concern, and communication fromothers determined to alleviate that pain. Pommier (2010) de-fines this determination to alleviate the suffering of others ascompassion for others (CFO).

CFO stemmed conceptually from Neff’s (2003) self-compassion (SC) model, and is composed of the same threecomponents: mindfulness, kindness, and common humanity.Accordingly, the main dimensions along with the opposing

* Melikşah DemirMeliksah.Demir@nau.edu

1 Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, TX,USA

2 Department of Psychological Sciences, Northern Arizona University,P.O. Box 15106, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA

Current Psychologyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9779-1

dimensions are: mindfulness (a willingness to understandothers’ suffering) versus disengagement (an unwillingness tounderstand others’ suffering), kindness (displaying warmthtowards those suffering) versus indifference (ignoring thosethat are suffering), and common humanity (viewing sufferingas a common human experience) versus separation (viewingsuffering as an individual, isolated experience). These threecomponents collectively make up CFO. Namely, Pommier(2010) explains that when others are suffering, having CFOentails being mindful of their emotions rather than dismissive,being understanding rather than apathetic, and viewing suffer-ing as a common human experience instead of the experiencebeing that individual’s fault.

While CFOmakes a unique contribution to the understand-ing of compassion in general, it is critical to highlight how itdiffers from other conceptualizations of compassion. First,one popular approach to compassion is compassionate goals(CG; Crocker and Canevello 2008), which are defined as be-ing concerned about other’s well-being and providing support.Although CG and CFO share kindness as a key component,they differ from each other in two ways. Specifically, neitherthe conceptualization nor the assessment of CG is concernedwith the mindfulness and common humanity component ofCFO. Also, while both CFO and CG conceptualizecompassion as a trait, CG can also be studied as a state. Forinstance, Crocker and Canevello (2008) state that B...peoplefluctuate from week to week, day to day, and possibly evenmoment to moment in how compassionate their goals are^ (p.557). Similarly, Martins et al.’ (2013) approach to compas-sion, as measured by the compassion scale, differs fromCFO. Specifically, although both conceptualizations focuson alleviating the pain of others, the compassion scale mea-sures compassion at the state level and does not incorporatethe mindfulness and common humanity aspects of CFO.

Secondly, another construct that is theoretically related toCFO is empathy. It is defined as Bsharing another’s feelingsby placing oneself psychologically in that person’scircumstances^ (Lazarus 1991, p. 287). Empathy is consideredto be an attribute of compassion (Gilbert 2010) and certainlyplays a key role in eliciting compassion (Goetz et al. 2010).However, Pommier (2010) highlights that CFO is a feelingelicited in response to another person’s suffering, whereas em-pathy emphasizes the mirroring of another persons’ emotionswhich is not limited to negative emotions. Also, the desire andmotivation to alleviate the suffering of another person is a keyaspect of CFO, while empathy does not entail this act or con-cern. Thus, although empathy is necessary for CFO, the expe-rience of compassion has B…additional components over andabove empathy^ (Strauss et al. 2016, p. 8). For instance, themindfulness component of CFO prevents the individual fromoveridentifying with another person’s distress, and this suggeststhat CFO is not equivalent to B…an empathetic state or mir-rored distress, fear, or sadness^ (Goetz et al. 2010, p. 363).

Consistent with this notion, Pommier (2010) reported a positiverelationship between empathy and CFO (r = .67), suggestingthat there is considerable overlap between the constructs, butthey are also distinct from each other.

Lastly, compassionate love (CL) is another popular ap-proach in studying compassion. CL is defined as Bfeelings,cognitions, or behaviors that are focused on caring, concern,tenderness, and an orientation toward supporting, helping, andunderstanding the other, particularly when suffering^(Sprecher and Fehr 2005, p. 630). Although both CFO andCL entail a desire to alleviate the suffering of others, theirassessment of and approach to compassion is different. Forinstance, while kindness and common humanity are key fea-tures in both constructs, CL does not address mindfulness (i.e.,emotional regulation). Also, the assessment of CL does notinclude items tapping into the recognition of others’ suffering(Strauss et al. 2016). Furthermore, CL is differentiated forclose others and humanity whereas CFO assumes consistentfeelings of compassion to the sufferer regardless of closeness.Consequently, Pommier (2010) found that CFO and CL weremoderately related (r = .30 for common humanity; r = .54 forclose others), supporting the notion that these two constructsare distinct. In sum, while there are similarities between CFOand other approaches to compassion, CFO is unique and dif-ferent from them with its multidimensional conceptualizationof compassion.

CFO and Psychosocial Well-Being

Since its development, numerous studies have utilizedPommier’s conceptualization of compassion and investigatedits nomological network. For instance, Roxas et al. (2014)found that CFO is a reliable predictor of forgiveness of others.In studies focusing on careers that entail rehabilitation, care,and support (e.g., nursing, music therapist), CFO was posi-tively related to compassion satisfaction (i.e., gratificationfrom caregiving) and negatively related to burnout (Durkinet al. 2016; Rushing 2017). Regarding interpersonal relation-ships, CFO has been associated with closeness, trust, and so-cial support in friendships (Salazar 2015). Furthermore,Salazar (2016) found an inverse relationship between CFOand verbal aggressiveness, narcissism, and interpersonalcommunication apprehension. Additionally, Feher (2016)found that CFO mediated the relationship between emotionalintelligence and conflict resolution strategies.

The relationship between CFO and happiness has beenobscured as a result of what Pommier (2010) termed theBparadox of compassion.^ This entails that being compassion-ate first constitutes a negative experience, recognizing the suf-fering of others, yet it also promotes positive emotions such ashappiness. Pommier (2010) explains that this relationship isonly present when individuals are mindful. If the negative

Curr Psychol

experience promoted by recognizing suffering consumes theindividual, compassion does not manifest. Consequently,Pommier (2010) proposed that alleviating the pain of othersmay explain the paradox of compassion. For instance, afterrecognizing other’s suffering, through feelings of concern,compassionate individuals are determined to provide aid.Thus, what promotes happiness is not the initial negative feel-ings, but the feelings involved when helping others, which isconsistent with studies showing a positive relationship be-tween happiness and prosocial behavior (Oishi et al. 2007;Priller and Schupp 2011). Another explanation that may ac-count for the paradox of compassion relate to the feelings ofinterdependence that emerge as a consequence of wanting toalleviate the suffering of others. In this case, both the personreceiving compassion and the person providing the compas-sion feel positive emotions.

Studies on different approaches of compassion demonstrate apositive relationship between compassion and happiness(Davidson 2006; Goleman 2003; Hollis-Walker and Colosimo2011; Mongrain et al. 2011; Neely et al. 2009; Neto 2012; Paceet al. 2009). Research investigating the association of CFO withwell-being is growing. Beaumont et al. (2016a, b) reported apositive relationship between CFO and well-being in varioussamples. İşgör (2017) reported that CFO was a predictor of sub-jective well-being among Turkish college students. Recently, re-search conducted with college students showed that CFO waspositively associated with happiness; a finding obtained regard-less of the happiness measure used (Demir, M., Grant, C., &Adams, D. Compassion for others and happiness. Unpublishedmanuscript). In sum, there is an array of studies showingmultiplebenefits associated with compassion, including happiness. Yet,less is known aboutwhyCFO is related to happiness. The currentinvestigation examined friendship maintenance behaviors as themediator between CFO and happiness.

Friendship Maintenance

Friendships matter. However, friendships do not magicallylast for years. A plethora of studies have investigated mainte-nance behaviors that take place between the initiation andtermination of relationships (Canary and Stafford 1994;Dindia and Baxter 1987). Early studies specifically focusingon friendship maintenance explored how individuals dealtwith conflict and anger in their friendships (Fehr 1996).However, the resolution of conflict does not fully entail whytwo individuals stay as friends. As a result, behaviors such asself-disclosure, supportiveness, and spending time togetherwere identified as additional strategies and routines most com-monly affiliated with friendship maintenance (Berndt 1986;Burleson and Samter 1994; Rosenfeld and Kendrick 1984).

Oswald et al. (2004) addressed the limitation of focusingon individual maintenance behaviors by presenting a

comprehensive approach to the study of maintenance behav-iors in friendships. Oswald et al. (2004) defined friendshipmaintenance (hereafter FM) as behaviors involving strategiesand routine behaviors used to sustain committed and satisfac-tory relationships. They identified four components that indi-viduals engage in to maintain their friendships: interaction,positivity, supportiveness, and openness. For instance, sup-portiveness refers to behaviors promoting social support andproviding comfort (e.g. BListen without making anyjudgment^) and openness captures behaviors that involvehonesty and being able to share private thoughts (e.g. BShareyour private thoughts with your friend^). Collectively, thesecomponents represent the broad construct of friendshipmaintenance.

FM is positively associated with relationship satisfactionand commitment (Oswald and Clark 2006), communalstrength (Mattingly et al. 2011), friendship quality (Canute2016), and autonomy support in the friendship (Demir et al.2011). Past research also showed that FM has implications forindividual well-being. For instance, FM has a positive rela-tionship with ego-resiliency and adaptive coping (Canute2016; Lozano et al. 2016). Interestingly, Baker et al. (2012)found a negative association between friendship maintenancebehaviors and depressive mood only when individuals report-ed being satisfied in their friendships. In addition, O'Brien(2014) reported that friendship maintenance behaviors werenegatively related to loneliness. Relevant to the purposes ofthe current study, it was found that friendship maintenancewas related to happiness (Demir et al. 2011). In sum, thereare numerous relational and individual benefits of engaging inFM behaviors.

Friendship Maintenance as a Mediatorof the Relationship Between CFOand Happiness

Although the available literature suggests that both CFO andFM are related to happiness, it is critical to examine how CFOmight be related to FM. Previous research suggests that beingcompassionate enhances one’s friendships by establishing so-cial bonds (Crocker and Canevello 2008). Of particular im-portance, Salazar (2015) found that CFO is linked to close-ness, trust, and social support in friendships, which areconstructs closely related to FM. We believe that there areseveral reasons why CFO might engender FM. To start with,Pommier (2010) noted that Bgood^ people usually performcompassionate behaviors because they illustrate selflessnessand a focus on others. This other-centered mindset allows in-dividuals to place less emphasis on the self and instead focuson and help others (Gilbert 2005), which might explain howCFO is linked to friendship maintenance. In friendships, thisother-focused mindset might promote a selfless approach to

Curr Psychol

friendship and increases an awareness of a friends’ suffering,distress, or/and pain. For instance, if a friend’s suffering isrecognized, individuals with high levels of CFO might be lessself-focused, aware of a friend’s distress, and be more inclinedto help, which in turn leads to actual friendship maintenancebehaviors such as listening, giving advice, and trying to cheerthem up.

Second, the overlap between these two constructs may ex-plain their relationship. For instance, we believe that mindful-ness, a key component of CFO, promote friendship mainte-nance behaviors. Through mindfulness one achieves emotion-al balance (not over-identifying with other’s feelings and notbeing disengaged; Pommier 2010) that makes it easier to helpa friend in need and provide support. For instance, if a friend isexperiencing difficulties or distress, a compassionate friendcan provide the best support since their emotions are undercontrol and in a state that is other-focused.

Another possible explanation for the association betweenCFO and FM has to do with the fact that relationships areinherently interdependent bonds (Ayres 1983; Kelley andThibaut 1978; Stafford and Canary 1991). In relationships,this interdependence creates a shared reality between two peo-ple that promotes feelings of Bwe-ness^, which refers to abond between two people that is established by identities be-ing intertwined (Reid et al. 2006). In fact, studies have foundthat a sense of we-ness is positively correlated to relationshipsatisfaction (Reid et al. 2006). Recall that with common hu-manity, individuals are able to understand and see someonethat is suffering as equal because it is a state we all experience;thus, a sense of we-ness or interconnectedness emerges.Ledbetter (2013) found that inclusion of others in the selfpredicted frequency of maintenance behaviors, indicating thata sense of we-ness in relationships encourages maintenancebehaviors. Thus, we believe that people with high CFOstrengthen a sense of we-ness already existing in close friend-ships, which motivates supportive and other friendship main-tenance strategies because friends are able to relate and under-stand one another with less effort.

Gender Differences

Although men and women do not differ from each other onhappiness (Diener et al. 1999), they do differ on compassionand friendship maintenance. Social role theory suggests thatgender-stereotypical qualities are relevant to prosocial behav-iors (Dindia and Canary 2006); with compassion, a gender-stereotypical quality, often attributed to women (Dindia andCanary 2006). A growing body of research has also consis-tently reported that women, compared to men, report higherlevels of CFO (Beresford 2016; Pommier 2010; Salazar 2015;Strauss et al. 2016).

Gender differences in friendships favoring women havebeen well-documented. For instance, past research showedthat friendships of women are higher in quality and self-disclosure (Fehr 1996; Leung 2002). Similarly, research onFM has also reported that women engage in higher levels ofrelationship maintenance behaviors in their friendships thanmen (Demir et al. 2011; Hays 1984; Oswald et al. 2004).

The well-established gender differences in relationship ex-periences have promoted theoretical arguments suggestingthat women, compared to men, reap more benefits from theirrelationships (Saphire-Bernstein and Taylor 2013). That is, theassociations of various relationships experiences should makea stronger contribution to their well-being.While this idea wasgenerally supported in research on marital relationships (e.g.,Pinquart and Sörensen 2000; Proulx et al. 2007; Saphire-Bernstein et al. 2010; see Williams 2003 for exception), em-pirical research on friendship has shown that the associationsof various friendship experiences with happiness are similarfor both men and women (Demir & Davidson, 2013; Demir etal. 2011). Relatedly, research investigating variousmeditational models linking friendships experiences to happi-ness was found to be gender invariant (Demir et al. 2017;Demir & Özdemir, 2010). The current investigation conferreda unique opportunity to contribute to this debate by examiningwhether FM mediated the association of CFO with happinesssimilarly for both men and women.

Aims of the Present Study

In light of the aforementioned literature, we developed fourhypotheses (H). We predicted that women would have higherscores on CFO and FM compared to men while there would beno differences between the groups on happiness (H1). We alsoexpected CFO to be positively related to FM (H2), and bothvariables to have a positive association with happiness (H3) forboth men and women. Finally, we predicted that FM wouldmediate the relationship of CFO with happiness similarly formen and women (H4). These hypotheses were tested in twoindependent samples both of which employed two differentconceptualizations of happiness to establish confidence in ourfindings. Specifically, the first study relied on the affective com-ponent of the tripartite model of happiness (Cummins 2013;Diener 1984), while the second study assessed the global hap-piness of the participants (Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999).

Method

Participants and Procedure

The samples for the studies consisted of 273 (83 men,Mage =19.13, SDage = 1.62, range = 18–25) and 368 (118 men,

Curr Psychol

Mage = 18.90, SDage = 1.58, range = 18–25) college students,respectively, attending a medium-sized university in thesouthwestern United States. Both samples were ethnically di-verse: 70 and 65% European American, 14 and 19% LatinoAmerican, 2 and 4% African American, 3 and 2% NativeAmerican, and 11 and 10% East Asian, Middle Eastern, mul-tiracial, or Bother .̂

The data for both studies were gathered online during twoconsecutive semesters. The studies were announced on anonline research participation system, with the title of the stud-ies (BClose Friendships and Well-Being^) available to partic-ipants. Participant were recruited from the psychology depart-ment’s online research participation system. Eligibility re-quirements included being between 18 to 25 years old, andhaving a nonfamilial, nonromantic same-sex best friend.Eligible participants signed up online, and received access tothe online survey administered via surveymonkey.com.Students that participated in the first study were not allowedto sign up for the second study through the online participationsystem. Participants provided informed consent prior tocompleting the survey, and received a debriefing form oncethe survey was completed. In both studies, the surveyconsisted of various other constructs (e.g., emotionregulation), however, only the constructs relevant for thepurposes of the present investigation are reported.Participants received extra credit for participation in thestudy. In both studies, the order of the questionnaires wascounterbalanced after every 100 participants. In both studies,completion of the surveys was about 25 min.

Measures

Assessment of Same-Sex Best Friendship Participants in bothstudies were required to have a same-sex best friend in orderto take part in the study. Participants were asked to confirmthat they have a nonfamilial, nonromantic same-sex bestfriend and report the duration of the best friendship. The du-ration of same-sex friendships did not differ between men(M = 85.49, SD = 57.15) and women (M = 78.08,SD= 52.09) in the first study (t (267) = 1.04, p = .30). In thesecond study, men’s friendships (M = 82.55, SD = 52.35),when compared to women’s friendships (M = 66.06,SD = 54.27), were longer in duration (Study 2: t (340) =2.61, p < .01, d = .31). Friendship duration was not related tothe study variables in either study.

Compassion for Others The Compassion Scale (CS; Pommier2010) was used to measure compassion for others in bothstudies. The CS consists of 24-itemswith six 4-item subscales.These subscales include: Kindness (e.g., BIf I see someonegoing through a difficult time, I try to be caring toward thatperson^), Common Humanity (e.g., BEveryone feels downsometimes, it is part of being human^), Mindfulness (e.g., BI

pay careful attention when other people talk to me^),Indifference (e.g., BSometimes when people talk about theirproblems, I feel like I don’t care^), Separation (e.g., BI don’tfeel emotionally connected to people in pain^), andDisengagement (e.g., BWhen people cry in front of me, I oftendon’t feel anything at all^). Respondents indicated their levelof agreement using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Almost Never,5 = Almost Always). Items for the Indifference, Separation,and Disengagement subscales were reverse coded. Means ofthe subscales were used to create a composite score wherehigher scores indicate higher levels of compassion for others(Study 1: αmen = .92, αwomen = .93; Study 2 = αmen = .92,αwomen = .94). Importantly, a recent study focusing on mea-sures of compassion with various criteria ranked CS as thesecond best measure of compassion (Strauss et al. 2016).

Friendship Maintenance The Friendship Maintenance Scale(FMS; Oswald et al. 2004) was used to measure the frequencyof behaviors individuals engage in to maintain their same-sexbest friendships in both studies. FMS consists of 20-itemsassessing four relationship maintenance dimensions:Positivity (e.g., BHow often do you reminisce about thingsyou did together in the past?^), Supportiveness (e.g., BHowoften do you support your friends when s/he is going througha difficult time?^), Openness (e.g.., BHow often do you repairmisunderstandings?^), and Interaction (e.g., BHow often doyou make an effort to spend time even when you are busy?^).Participants were asked to indicate how often they engage in aspecific behavior in their friendship using an 11-point scale(1 =Never, 11 = Frequently). The means of the subscales wererelied on for the creation of respective composite scores. Themean correlation between the four dimensions in Study 1 and2 were .80 and .75, respectively. Thus, the mean of all itemswas taken to create an overall FM composite score wherehigher scores indicate higher levels of relationship mainte-nance (Study 1: αmen = .93, αwomen = .95; Study2 = αmen = .95, αwomen = .96). FMS is positively associatedwith relationship satisfaction and commitment to the friendand is sensitive to the degree of closeness such that individualsreport higher levels of maintenance behaviors for their bestfriends when compared to close or casual friends (Oswaldet al. 2004; Oswald and Clark 2006).

Happiness The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule(PANAS; Watson et al. 1988) was used to measure happinessin the first study. PANAS is the most widely used instrumentthat measures the affective component of happiness (e.g.,Busseri and Sadava 2011). It consists of 10 mood states forpositive affect (PA; e.g. excited) and 10 for negative affect(NA; e.g., nervous). Participants were asked to rate the extentto which they feel each mood in general on a 5-point scale(very slightly or not all (1), extremely (5)). Composite PA(αmen = .83 , αwome n = .85 ) and NA (αmen = .87 ,

Curr Psychol

αwomen = .89) scores were computed by taking the mean of therespective items. An affect balance score was computed bysubtracting negative affect score from positive affect score(e.g., Diener 1994).

The Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky andLepper 1999) was used to assess happiness in the secondstudy. The SHS measures the subjective assessment of theindividual’s global happiness with four items (e.g., BIn gen-eral, I consider myself: 1 = not a very happy person, 7 = avery happy person). After recoding the reverse-keyed item,a composite happiness score was created by taking the meanof the four items, where higher scores indicate higher levelsof happiness (αmen = .83, αwomen = .85). The SHS has beenshown to be positively correlated with other measures ofhappiness (e.g., life satisfaction) and psychosocial well-being (e.g., environmental mastery; Lyubomirsky andLepper 1999; Otake et al. 2006; Segrin and Taylor 2007).

Results

The correlations amongst the study variables, and means forboth men and women in both studies are reported in Tables 1and 2. Consistent with our prediction, men and women did notdiffer from each other on happiness (Study 1: t (271) = 1.33,p = .19; Study 2: t (366) = .94, p = .35). However, as predicted,women reported higher levels of CFO (Study 1: t (271) = 3.50,p < .001, d = .40; Study 2: t (366) = 4.48, p < .001, d = .50) andmaintenance behaviors (Study 1: t (271) = 3.17, p < .001,d = .42; Study 2: t (366) = 4.85, p < .001, d = .54) compared tomen. The effect sizes associated with the differences were mod-erate. Overall, H1 concerning gender differences was supportedin both studies.

The correlations amongst the study variables in both stud-ies yielded support for H2 and H3. CFO was positively asso-ciated with friendship maintenance, and both variables werepositively related to happiness for men and women in bothsamples. Fisher’s z –test, comparing the strength of the corre-lations between the two groups, did not reveal any significantdifferences.

Our prediction that FM would mediate the association be-tween CFO and happiness (H4) was tested with bootstrapestimation by relying on regression analyses (Hayes 2013;Preacher and Hayes 2008). This procedure estimates confi-dence intervals for the indirect effects while repeatedly sam-pling, with replacement, from the dataset (Preacher and Hayes2004). The results would support mediation only when the95% confidence intervals (CI) do not include zero, and noindirect effect would be inferred if the CIs did contain zero(MacKinnon et al. 2002). Consistent with the recommenda-tions of Mallinckrodt et al. (2006) 10,000 bootstrap sampleswere estimated, and the CIs obtained from the bias-correctedand accelerated intervals were reported (Efron 1987).

The results supported the proposed model in both studies(Study 1: Men: R2 = .25, B = .37, 95% BCa CI = [0.17, 0.64],Women: R2 = .13; B = .30, 95% BCa CI = [0.12, 0.52]; Study2: Men: R2 = .12, B = .25, 95% BCa CI = [0.07, 0.45],Women: R2 = .16, B = .33, 95% BCa CI = [0.21, 0.52]). TheCIs did not include zero, and as reported in Fig. 1, the rela-tionship between CFO and happiness was no longer signifi-cant when friendship maintenance was taken into account inboth studies. Although the proposed model was supported, itcould be that CFO mediates the association between FM withhappiness. Thus, we tested CFO as a mediator to exclude thisas an alternative explanation. Results did not support this al-ternative model (Study 1: Men: B = .03, 95% BCaCI = [−0.04, 0.14], Women: B = .05, 95% BCa CI = [−0.03,0.14]; Study 2: Men: B = .05, 95% BCa CI = [−0.02, 0.15],Women: B = .02, 95% BCa CI = [−0.03, 0.09]). Collectively,these analyses suggest that FM mediated the CFO-Happinessassociation similarly for both men and women.

Discussion

The findings of the current investigation contribute to thegrowing literature on CFO in two important ways. First, wedemonstrated that CFO is positively associated with FM insame-sex friendships. This represents a unique addition tothe nomological network of CFO and suggests that the

Table 1 Means, StandardDeviations, and CorrelationsAmongst the Variables (Study 1)

Men WomenM (SD) M (SD)

1 2 3

1. Compassion for others – .53* .33* 3.77 (.59) 4.02 (.65)

2. Friendship maintenance .61* – .49* 9.23 (1.35) 9.79 (1.34)

3. Happiness .28* .35* – 1.93 (.91) 1.74 (1.12)

Correlations for men (n = 83) are above the diagonal, women (n = 190) below the diagonal. Values in parenthesesare standard deviations

*p < .01

Curr Psychol

presumed benefits of CFO extend into relationship mainte-nance. Second, we showed that FM mediated the relationshipbetween CFO and happiness. These findings were obtained intwo different studies each employing a different measure ofhappiness. Importantly, we were able to show that the modelwas supported for both men and women.

Decades of empirical research on close relationships ingeneral and friendships in particular suggest that any discus-sion or presentation of findings concerning relationship expe-riences would be incomplete without taking gender into ac-count (Hazan and Shaver 1994; Oswald et al. 2004).Relatedly, the gender benefits debate in the literature suggeststhat women might reap more benefits from their relationshipscompared to men (Saphire-Bernstein and Taylor 2013). Thehypotheses and the analyses addressed these two importantissues. The first hypothesis predicted gender differences inCFO and FM, favoring women. This was supported in bothstudies yieldingmoderate effect sizes, which is consistent withpast research (Demir et al. 2011; Oswald et al. 2004; Salazar2015).

The well-established gender differences in the literaturepromoted arguments that because women, compared to men,display a stronger relationship orientation the contributions ofrelationship experiences to their well-being might be stronger.The predictions addressing this issue (H2 & H3) were con-firmed such that CFO was positively associated with FM andboth variables were correlated with happiness similarly for

both men and women. That is, the strength of the associationsdid not differ by gender. Importantly, the proposed mediation-al model was supported similarly for both men and women.Thus, while women display a stronger concern to alleviate thesuffering of others and engage in FM behaviors to a greaterextent than men, the benefits associated with these differencesand the process through which CFO contributes to happinessare similar for both genders. We believe that this is a signifi-cant finding that highlights the usefulness of CFO for thepsychosocial well-being of emerging adult men and women.It also suggests that the gender benefits argument might not begeneralizable to relationship experiences and compassionateacts in the context of friendship and experience of happiness.

One strength of the current study was the utilization of twodifferent conceptualizations of happiness to establish confi-dence in the proposed model. While Study 1 focused on theaffective component of the tripartite model of happiness(Cummins 2013), Study 2 assessed the global happiness ofthe participants. The findings across the two studies were sim-ilar suggesting that the associations of CFO and FM withhappiness as well as the support for the proposed model arenot specific to the way happiness is assessed. While this prac-tice enhanced confidence in our findings, it remains to be seenwhether the findings would be replicated when life-satisfac-tion, the cognitive component of the tripartite model, and dif-ferent measures of affect (Kjell et al. 2016; Miao et al. 2013)are used as measures of happiness.

1.21**, 1.26**/1.33**, 1.18** .30**, .24**/ .18*, .29**

.51*, .48** / .49*, .47**

C’= .15, .18 / .25, .13

Friendship

maintenance

Compassion

for others Happiness

Fig. 1 Friendship Maintenance as a Mediator of the Compassion forOthers-Happiness Association. The numbers in the figures represent theunstandardized regression coefficients. The C′ represents the effect of theCompassion for Others on happiness when taking the mediator into

account. Values before and after the dash sign are for the first and secondstudies, respectively. The first numerical value in each block is for men,and the second one for women. Please refer to the text for sample sizes. *p < .01, ** p < .001

Table 2 Means, StandardDeviations, and CorrelationsAmongst the Variables (Study 2)

Men WomenM (SD) M (SD)

1 2 3

1. Compassion for others – .52* .27* 3.74 (.63) 4.05 (.61)

2. Friendship Maintenance .45* – .33* 8.77 (1.62) 9.64 (1.60)

3. Happiness .23* .40* – 5.22 (1.14) 5.09 (1.24)

Correlations formen (n = 118) are above the diagonal, women (n = 250) below the diagonal. Values in parenthesesare standard deviations

*p < .01

Curr Psychol

The contribution of the current study is limited with its focuson friendships. It is important to highlight that emerging adultsmaintain relationships with their parents and some are involvedin romantic relationships (Demir&Özdemir, 2010; Shulman andConnolly 2013). These relationships are also reliable correlatesof individual happiness (see Demir & Sümer, 2018; and Feeneyand Collins 2015, for reviews). Thus, it remains to be seenwhether the findings of the current study would apply to otherclose relationships. Since CFO entails having a concern anddetermination to alleviate the suffering of others in general it islikely that it would promote maintenance behaviors in other in-timate relationships. Thus, we predict that the model supportedfor friendship would be generalizable to the other relationships ofemerging adults.

The current investigation adds to the growing nomologicalnetwork of CFO by documenting an association with FM. Pastresearch linked CFO to conflict resolution strategies in general(Feher 2016) and we showed that it is also related to routine andstrategic behaviors that keep a friendship intact. Considering thepositive associations of CFOwith FMand happiness, it would beappropriate to consider CFO as a personal strength and resourcethat has the potential to promote relational and psychologicalwell-being. This argument is bolstered by work on characterstrengths and virtues (Peterson and Seligman 2004).Specifically, humanity is one of the virtues that cover the char-acter strengths of kindness, love, and social intelligence (Parkand Peterson 2009). Individuals with the virtue of humanity areaware of other’s feelings and value close relationships for whichthey perform good deeds. While there is some overlap betweenCFO and the virtue of humanity, it is important to note that thisvirtue does not necessarily address all of the components of CFOand is not concerned with alleviating the suffering of others.Notably, past research has shown that character strengths areassociated with happiness (Park and Peterson 2006; Park et al.2004; Peterson et al. 2007; Peterson and Seligman 2004).Finding that CFO makes a unique contribution to the predictionof psychosocial well-being above and beyond humanity wouldsupport our argument that CFO is a personal strength andresource.

In the current investigation, we moved above and beyond thesimple associations by showing that FM explain why CFO isrelated to happiness. While we introduced a unique way of un-derstanding how these variables relate to each other, and predicthappiness, future research has the potential to investigate otherpotential mediators of the CFO-happiness association and exam-ine complex models. For instance, it could be that individualswith higher levels of CFO enjoy friendships that are higher inoverall quality and satisfaction. Since both markers of thesefriendships are robust correlates of happiness (Demir et al.2015), they could be tested as potential mediators of the CFO-Happiness association.

Technological advancement brings with itself the opportu-nity to maintain relationships in online platforms. The current

investigation focused on FM behaviors in general in same-sex best friendships and did not differentiate between on-line versus face-to-face relational maintenance behaviors.Empirical research on online interactions suggests that in-dividuals establish and maintain solely online friendships(Ye 2006). For instance, Aisha (2014) found that intenseFacebook users, compared to inactive users, engaged inFacebook maintenance behaviors more and were moreinvested in maintaining online friendships. Earlier, we sug-gested that CFO represents a personal strength and re-source for building and enhancing relationships. Thus, wewould predict that individuals with higher levels of CFOwould engage in routine and strategic maintenance behav-iors for online only friendships as well and reap similarbenefits reported for face-to-face friendships.

CFO is a relatively recent conceptualization of compassion.Yet, a burgeoning body of empirical research and the findingof the current study suggest that it has implications for psy-chosocial well-being. However, the utility of CFO in well-being and assessing compassion needs empirical scrutiny.Specifically, future research should investigate the role ofCFO in psychosocial well-being in relation to other concep-tualizations of compassion such as CG (Crocker andCanevello 2008) and CL (Sprecher and Fehr 2005). The as-sessment of different approaches to compassion simultaneous-ly would allow, for instance, examining whether the associa-tions of CFO with FM and happiness hold when controllingfor CG and/or CL. This would be a strong test of the abilityand utility of CFO in well-being. Also, since CG is associatedwith friendship experiences (e.g., support) and well-being(Crocker and Canevello 2012), it is possible that individualswith higher levels of CFO might have stronger CG in theirfriendships that would promote various relationship mainte-nance behaviors which in turn might contribute to their hap-piness. Finding support for such a model in an ideally longi-tudinal or diary study would suggest that different conceptu-alizations of compassion work in tandem and collectively pro-mote well-being in unique ways.

Limitations

Although the findings across the two studies yielded supportfor the proposed model, the findings should be interpretedwith caution given the limitations of the research design andsamples. First, the cross-sectional nature of the study preventsmaking inferences suggesting a cause-effect relationship.Thus, a longitudinal study would be best suited to addressthe limitations of the cross-sectional data. Second, the datarepresents the perspective of one individual. Friendships donot take place in vacuum; they are dyadic in nature and areinherently interdependent. Thus, it would be ideal to gatherdata on the study variables from both members of the friend-ship. This practice would not only allow to test the proposed

Curr Psychol

model for both members of the dyad but also enable the in-vestigation of potential partner effects. That is, whether one’sCFO promotes the partner’s FM behaviors and vice-versa.Third, the sampling method and the composition of the sam-ples limit the generalizability of the findings. Since we reliedon convenience samples of college students, the findings can-not be generalized to other populations (i.e. nonstudent popu-lation). Thus, future studies with other age groups are neededto investigate whether the proposed model would be support-ed beyond an emerging adult sample. Additionally, studies oncompassion often consist of homogenous samples, lackingracial diversity (e.g., Pommier 2010). The present study wasno exception, with a large Caucasian sample, limiting theability to generalize findings to racial or ethnic minoritygroups. Fourth, it is likely that the present studies were in-fluenced by volunteer bias (Rosnow and Rosenthal 1997).Because the title of the study was available to participantsthrough the online participant management pool, those withmore positive friendship experiences could have been moreinclined to participate in the study (Demir, Haynes, Orthel-Clark, & Özen, 2017). Thus, it would be appropriate torecruit potential participants with neutral study titles whichcould alleviate volunteer self-selection bias. Finally, whenconducting research involving self-report measures of com-passion, participants are less likely to report a lack of com-passion (Pommier 2010). For this reason, in addition togathering dyadic data, it would be ideal to gather data froma participant’s close other (e.g., romantic partner, sibling,friend, parents) to ensure accurate assessment of CFO.

Conclusion

We investigated whether FM behaviors mediated the relation-ship between CFO and happiness. The findings supported theproposed mediation model, across two separate college stu-dent samples, displaying that CFO is associated with happi-ness partly because of FM behaviors, regardless of the happi-ness measure utilized. Despite women scoring higher on CFOand FM in both studies, the model was supported for bothgenders. Future research is ripe with numerous opportunitiesthat have the potential to enhance our understanding of theimplications of CFO for relational and individual well-being.

Funding The writing of this manuscript was indirectly supported by theNational Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates(#1659888) summer internships awarded to the first and second authors.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest Marlyn Sanchez and Andrew Haynes were the re-cipients of summer internships as part of the National Science FoundationResearch Experiences for Undergraduates. On behalf of all authors, thecorresponding author states that the authors have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving humanparticipants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institu-tional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinkideclaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individualparticipants included in the study.

References

Aisha, T.S. (2014). Close friendship maintenance on Facebook: The re-lationship between dialectical contradictions, Facebook relationalmaintenance behaviors, and relationship satisfaction in the U. S.and Malaysia (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kent StateUniversity, Ohio.

Akin, U., & Akin, A. (2015). Examining the predictive role of self-compassion on sense of community in Turkish adolescents. SocialIndicators Research, 123(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0724-5.

Arslan, G. (2017). Psychological maltreatment, forgiveness, mindfulness,and Internet addiction among young adults: A study of mediationeffect.Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.037.

Ayres, J. (1983). Strategies to maintain relationships: Their identificationand perceived usage. Communication Quarterly, 31(1), 62–67.https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378309369487.

Baker, L. R., McNulty, J. K., Overall, N. C., Lambert, N. M., & Fincham,F. D. (2012). How do relationship maintenance behaviors affectindividual well-being? A contextual perspective. SocialPsychological and Personality Sciences, 4(3), 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612452891.

Barry, C. M., Madsen, S. D., & DeGrace, A. (2016). Growing up with alittle help from their friends in emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett &J. J. Arnett (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of emerging adulthood (pp.215–229). New York: Oxford University Press.

Beaumont, E., Durkin, M., Hollins Martin, C. J., & Carson, J. (2016a).Measuring relationships between self-compassion, compassion fa-tigue, burnout and well-being in student counsellors and studentcognitive behavioural psychotherapists: A quantitative survey.Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 16(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12054.

Beaumont, E., Durkin, M., Hollins Martin, C. J., & Carson, J. (2016b).Compassion for others, self-compassion, quality of life and mentalwell-being measures and their association with compassion fatigueand burnout in student midwives: A quantitative survey.Midwifery,34, 239–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2015.11.002.

Beresford, A. (2016). The compassionate mind: A correlational investi-gation into the relationship between self-compassion and compas-sion for others (Unpublished dissertation). ManchesterMetropolitanUniversity, UK.

Berndt, T. J. (1986). Children’s comments about their friendships. In M.Perlmutter (Ed.), Cognitive perspectives on children’s social andbehavioral development (pp. 189–212). Hillsdale: LawrenceErlbaum.

Bibeau, M., Dionne, F., & LeBlanc, J. (2016). Can compassion medita-tion contribute to the development of psychotherapists’ empathy? Areview. Mindfulness, 7(1), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0439-y.

Brannan, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Mohr, C. D., Mortazavi, S., & Stein, N.(2013). Friends and family: A cross-cultural investigation of socialsupport and subjective well-being among college students. TheJournal of Positive Psychology, 8(1), 65–75.

Curr Psychol

Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1994). A social skills approach to rela-tionships maintenance: How individual differences in communica-tion skills affect the achievement of relationship functions. In D. J.Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relationalmaintenance (pp. 61–90). New York: Academic Press.

Busseri, M. A., & Sadava, S. W. (2011). A review of the tripartite struc-ture of subjective well-being: Implications for conceptualization,operationalization, analysis, and synthesis. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 15(3), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310391271.

Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships throughstrategic and routine interaction. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford(Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 3–22).San Diego: Academic Press.

Canute, K.K. (2016). The relationship between friendship maintenance,friendship quality, and coping on first semester college stress(Master’s thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations andTheses database. (10242480).

Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and undermining socialsupport in communal relationships: The role of compassionate andself-image goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,95(3), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.555.

Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2012). Consequences of self-image andcompassionate goals. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances inExperimental Social Psychology (pp. 232–277). San Diego:Academic Press.

Cummins, R. A. (2013). Measuring happiness and subjective well-being.In S. A. David, I. Boniwell, & A. Conley Ayers (Eds.), OxfordHandbook of Happiness (pp. 185–200). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Davidson, R. J. (2006). Emotions from the perspective of Western biobe-havioral science. In A. Harrington & A. Zajonc (Eds.), The DalaiLama at MIT (pp. 141–150). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Demir, M. (2010). Close relationships and happiness among emergingadults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 293–313.

Demir, M., & Özdemir, M. (2010). Friendship, need satisfaction andhappiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 243–259.

Demir, M., & Davidson, I. (2013). Toward a better understanding of therelationship between friendship and happiness: Perceived responsesto capitalization attempts, feelings of mattering, and satisfaction ofbasic psychological needs in same-sex best friendships as predictorsof happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 525–550.

Demir, M., & Sümer, N. (in press). Close relationships and happinessacross cultures. Dordrecht: Springer.

Demir, M., Özdemir, M., & Marum, K. (2011). Autonomy support,friendship maintenance and happiness. Journal of Psychology,145,537–571.

Demir, M., Haynes, A., & Potts, S. (2017). My friends are my estate:Friendship experiences mediate the relationship between perceivedresponses to capitalization attempts and happiness. Journal ofHappiness Studies, 18, 1161–1190.

Demir, M., Vento, I., Boyd, R., & Hanks, E. (in press). My relationshipsare my estate: Relationships with kin and voluntary bonds as pre-dictors of happiness among emerging adults. In M. Demir, and N.Sümer (Eds.), Close relationships and happiness across cultures.Dordrecht: Springer.

Demir, M., Orthel-Clark, H, Özdemir, M, &; Özdemir, S. B. (2015).Friendship and happiness among young adults (pp. 117–136). InM. Demir (Ed.), Friendship and Happiness: Across the life-spanand cultures. Dordrecht: Springer.

Demir, M., Haynes, A., Orthel-Clark, H., & Özen, A. (2017). Volunteerbias in research on friendship among emerging adults. EmergingAdulthood, 5, 53–68.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95,542–575.

Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and oppor-tunities. Social Indicators Research, 31, 103–157.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. E. (1999). Subjectivewell-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125,276–302.

Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining andrepairing marital relationships. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships, 4(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407587042003.

Dindia, K., & Canary, D. J. (2006). Sex differences and similarities incommunication. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Durkin, M., Beaumont, E., Hollis Martin, C. J., & Carson, J. (2016). Apilot study exploring the relationship between self-compassion, self-judgement, self-kindness, compassion, professional quality of lifeand wellbeing among UK community nurses. Nurse EducationToday, 46, 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.08.030.

Efron, B. (1987). Better bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of theAmerican Statistical Association, 82(397), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.2307/2289144.

Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: Atheoretical perspective on thriving through relationships.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–147.

Feher, A. (2016). The influence of self-compassion, compassion forothers, and emotional intelligence on conflict resolution strategies(Master’s thesis). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository.(3865).

Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Chicago: Sage Publications.Gilbert, P. (2005). Compassion: Conceptualisations, research, and use in

psychotherapy. New York: Routledge.Gilbert, P. (2010). The compassionate mind: A new approach to life's

challenges. New Harbinger Publications.Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: an

evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin,136(3), 351–374.

Goleman, D. (2003). Healing emotions: Conversations with the DalaiLama on mindfulness, emotions, and health. Boston: ShambhalaPublications.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi-tional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York:Guilford Press.

Hays, R. B. (1984). The development and maintenance of friendship.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 75–98.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizationalframework for research on close relationships. PsychologicalInquiry, 5(1), 1–22.

Hollis-Walker, L., & Colosimo, K. (2011). Mindfulness, self-compassion,and happiness in non-meditators: A theoretical and empirical exam-ination. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 222–227.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.033.

İşgör, İ. Y. (2017). Merhametin öznel iyi oluş üzerindeki yordayıcıetkisinin incelenmesi [Investigating the predictive effect of compas-sion on subjective well-being]. Gaziantep University Journal ofSocial Sciences, 16(2), 425–436.

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. E. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theoryof interdependence. New York: Wiley.

Kjell, O. N. E., Daukantaitė, D., Hefferon, K., & Sikström, S. (2016). Theharmony in life scale complements the satisfaction with life scale:Expanding the conceptualization of the cognitive component of sub-jective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 126(2), 893–919.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0903-z.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Ledbetter, A. M. (2013). Relational maintenance and inclusion of theother in the self: Measure development and dyadic test of a self-expansion theory approach. Southern Communication Journal,78(4), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2013.815265.

Curr Psychol

Leung, L. (2002). Loneliness, self-disclosure, and ICQ ("I seek you") use.Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493102760147240.

Lozano, E. B., Hojjat, M., & Sims-Knight, J. (2016). Does ego-resilienceimpact friendship outcomes? Journal of Individual Differences,37(2), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000197.

Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective hap-piness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. SocialIndicators Research, 46(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., &Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation andother intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83.

Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, W. T., Wei, M., & Russell, D. W. (2006).Advances in testing the statistical significance of mediation effects.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.372.

Martins, D., Nicholas, N. A., Shaheen,M., Jones, L., &Norris, K. (2013).The development and evaluation of a compassion scale. Journal ofHealth Care for the Poor and Underserved, 24(3), 1235–1246.https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2013.0148.

Mattingly, B. A., Oswald, D. L., & Clark, E. M. (2011). An examinationof relational interdependent self-construal, communal strength, andpro-relationship behaviors in friendships. Personality andIndividual Differences, 50(8), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.018.

Miao, F. F., Koo, M., & Oishi, S. (2013). Subjective well-being. In I.Boniwell, S. A. David, & A. C. Ayers (Eds.), Oxford Handbookof Happiness (pp. 174–184). United Kingdom: OxfordUniversity Press.

Mongrain, M., Chin, J. M., & Shapira, L. B. (2011). Practicing compassionincreases happiness and self-esteem. Journal of Happiness Studies,12(6), 963–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9239-1.

Neely, M. E., Schallert, D. L.,Mohammed, S. S., Roberts, R.M., &Chen,Y. J. (2009). Self-kindness when facing stress: The role of self-com-passion, goal regulation, and support in college students’well-being.Motivation and Emotion, 33(1), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-008-9119-8.

Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measureself-compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860390209035.

Neff, K. D., &Knox,M. (2017). Self-Compassion. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T.K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and IndividualDifferences. New York: Springer.

Neto, F. (2012). Compassionate love for a romantic partner, love stylesand subjective well-being. Interpersona, 6(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v6i1.88.

O'Brien, C.R. (2014). Relational maintenance behaviors, conflict resolu-tion strategies, and their relation to loneliness (Master’s thesis).Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.(1559986).

Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2007). The optimum level of well-being: Can people be too happy? Perspectives on PsychologicalScience, 2(4), 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00048.x.

Oswald, D. L., & Clark, E. M. (2006). How do friendship maintenancebehaviors and problem-solving styles function at the individual anddyadic levels? Personal Relationships, 13(3), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00121.x.

Oswald, D. L., Clark, E. M., & Kelly, C. M. (2004). Friendship mainte-nance: An analysis of individual and dyad behaviors. Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology, 23(3), 413–441. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.3.413.35460.

Otake, K., Shimai, S., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Otsui, K., & Fredrickson, B.L. (2006). Happy people become happier through kindness: A

counting kindnesses intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies,7(3), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-005-3650-z.

Pace, T. W., Negi, L. T., Adame, D. D., Cole, S. P., Sivilli, T. I., et al.(2009). Effect of compassion meditation on neuroendocrine, innateimmune and behavioral responses to psychosocial stress.Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.08.011.

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006). Moral competence and characterstrengths among adolescents: The development and validation ofthe values in action inventory of strengths for youth. Journal ofAdolescence, 29, 891–905.

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2009). Character strengths: Research and prac-tice. Journal of College and Character, 10(4), 1–10.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of characterand well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5),603–619.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues:A classification and handbook. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Peterson, C., Ruch,W., Beerman, U., Park, N., & Seligman,M. E. (2007).Strengths of character, orientations to happiness, and life satisfac-tion. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 149–156.

Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2000). Influences of socioeconomic status,social network, and competence on subjective well-being in laterlife: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 15(2), 187–224.https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.15.2.187.

Pommier, E.A. (2010). The compassion scale (Doctoral Dissertation).Retrieved from UT Electronic Theses and Dissertations. (2213).

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures forestimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. BehaviorResearch Methods, 36(4), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strat-egies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple medi-ator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.

Priller, E., & Schupp, J. (2011). Social and economic characteristics offinancial and blood donors in Germany. DIW Economic Bulletin, 6,23–30.

Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality andpersonal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 69(3), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x.

Ratelle, C. F., Simard, K., & Guay, F. (2013). University students’ sub-jective well-being: The role of autonomy support from parents,friends, and the romantic partner. Journal of Happiness Studies,14(3), 893–910.

Reid, D.W., Dalton, E. J., Laderoute, K., Doell, F. K., &Nguyen, T. (2006).Therapeutically induced changes in couple identity: The role of we-ness and interpersonal processing in relationship satisfaction.Genetic,Social, and General Psychology Monograph, 132(3), 241–284.https://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.132.3.241-288.

Rosenfeld, L. B., & Kendrick, W. L. (1984). Choosing to be open: Anempirical investigation of subjective reasons for self-disclosing.Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 326–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318409374168.

Rosnow, R., & Rosenthal, R. (1997). People studying people: Artifactsand ethics in behavioral research. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Roxas, M. M., David, A. P., & Caligner, E. C. (2014). Examining therelation of compassion and forgiveness among Filipino counselors.Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 3(1), 53–62.

Rushing, J.E. (2017). Music therapists’ self-compassion, compassion forothers, and professional quality of life (Master’s Thesis). Retrievedfrom Theses and Dissertations. (90).

Curr Psychol

Salazar, L. R. (2015). Exploring the relationship between compassion,closeness, trust, and social support in same-sex friendships. TheJournal of Happiness & Well-Being, 3(1), 15–29.

Salazar, L. R. (2016). The relationship between compassion, interperson-al communication apprehension, narcissism, and verbal aggressive-ness. Journal of Happiness & Well-Being, 4(1), 1–14.

Saphire-Bernstein, S., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Close relationships andhappiness. In I. Boniwell, S. A. David, & A. C. Ayers (Eds.),Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 821–833). United Kingdom:Oxford University Press.

Saphire-Bernstein, S., Taylor, S.E., Moore, A.N., Lam, S., & Seeman,T.E. (2010). Is relationship quality related to life satisfaction?Manuscript under review.

Segrin, C., & Taylor, M. (2007). Positive interpersonal relationships me-diate the association between social skills and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 637–646.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.017.

Shulman, S., & Connolly, J. (2013). The challenge of romantic relation-ships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field.Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 27–39.

Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others andhumanity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5),629–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505056439.

Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romanticrelationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 8(2), 217–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407591082004.

Strauss, C., Taylor, B. L., Gu, J., Kuyken, W., Baer, R., & Cavanagh, K.(2016). What is compassion and how can we measure it? A reviewof definitions and measures.Clinical Psychology Review, 47, 15–27.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.05.004.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and val-idation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: ThePANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.

Williams, K. (2003). Has the future of marriage arrived? A contemporaryexamination of gender, marriage, and psychological well-being.Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(4), 470–487.

Yarnell, L. M., & Neff, K. D. (2013). Self-compassion, interpersonalconflict resolutions, and well-being. Self and Identity, 12(2), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.649545.

Ye, J. (2006). Maintaining online friendship: Cross-cultural analyses oflinks among relational maintenance strategies, relational factors,and channel-related factors. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved fromScholar Works at Georgia State University.

Curr Psychol